Can anyone please suggest me algorithm for this.
You are given starting and the ending points of N segments over the x-axis.
How many of these segments can be touched, even on their edges, by exactly two lines perpendicular to them?
Sample Input :
3
5
2 3
1 3
1 5
3 4
4 5
5
1 2
1 3
2 3
1 4
1 5
3
1 2
3 4
5 6
Sample Output :
Case 1: 5
Case 2: 5
Case 3: 2
Explanation :
Case 1: We will draw two lines (parallel to Y-axis) crossing X-axis at point 2 and 4. These two lines will touch all the five segments.
Case 2: We can touch all the points even with one line crossing X-axis at 2.
Case 3: It is not possible to touch more than two points in this case.
Constraints:
1 ≤ N ≤ 10^5
0 ≤ a < b ≤ 10^9
Let assume that we have a data structure that supports the following operations efficiently:
Add a segment.
Delete a segment.
Return the maximum number of segments that cover one point(that is, the "best" point).
If have such a structure, we can get use the initial problem efficiently in the following manner:
Let's create an array of events(one event for the start of each segment and one for the end) and sort by the x-coordinate.
Add all segments to the magical data structure.
Iterate over all events and do the following: when a segment start, add one to the number of currently covered segments and remove it from that data structure. When a segment ends, subtract one from the number of currently covered segment and add this segment to the magical data structure. After each event, update the answer with the value of the number of currently covered segments(it shows how many segments are covered by the point which corresponds to the current event) plus the maximum returned by the data structure described above(it shows how we can choose another point in the best possible way).
If this data structure can perform all given operations in O(log n), then we have an O(n log n) solution(we sort the events and make one pass over the sorted array making a constant number of queries to this data structure for each event).
So how can we implement this data structure? Well, a segment tree works fine here. Adding a segment is adding one to a specific range. Removing a segment is subtracting one from all elements in a specific range. Get ting the maximum is just a standard maximum operation on a segment tree. So we need a segment tree that supports two operations: add a constant to a range and get maximum for the entire tree. It can be done in O(log n) time per query.
One more note: a standard segment tree requires coordinates to be small. We may assume that they never exceed 2 * n(if it is not the case, we can compress them).
An O(N*max(logN, M)) solution, where M is the medium segment size, implemented in Common Lisp: touching-segments.lisp.
The idea is to first calculate from left to right at every interesting point the number of segments that would be touched by a line there (open-left-to-right on the lisp code). Cost: O(NlogN)
Then, from right to left it calculates, again at every interesting point P, the best location for a line considering segments fully to the right of P (open-right-to-left on the lisp code). Cost O(N*max(logN, M))
Then it is just a matter of looking for the point where the sum of both values tops. Cost O(N).
The code is barely tested and may contain bugs. Also, I have not bothered to handle edge cases as when the number of segments is zero.
The problem can be solved in O(Nlog(N)) time per test case.
Observe that there is an optimal placement of two vertical lines each of which go through some segment endpoints
Compress segments' coordinates. More info at What is coordinate compression?
Build a sorted set of segment endpoints X
Sort segments [a_i,b_i] by a_i
Let Q be a priority queue which stores right endpoints of segments processed so far
Let T be a max interval tree built over x-coordinates. Some useful reading atWhat are some sources (books, etc.) from where I can learn about Interval, Segment, Range trees?
For each segment make [a_i,b_i]-range increment-by-1 query to T. It allows to find maximum number of segments covering some x in [a,b]
Iterate over elements x of X. For each x process segments (not already processed) with x >= a_i. The processing includes pushing b_i to Q and making [a_i,b_i]-range increment-by-(-1) query to T. After removing from Q all elements < x, A= Q.size is equal to number of segments covering x. B = T.rmq(x + 1, M) returns maximum number of segments that do not cover x and cover some fixed y > x. A + B is a candidate for an answer.
Source:
http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-intended-solutions-for-the-Touching-segments-and-the-Smallest-String-and-Regex-problems-from-the-Cisco-Software-Challenge-held-on-Hackerrank
Related
Below I have represented 2 permutations of bits in a 2D bit array (1s are red). The matrix on the left has a single group of contiguous 1s but the right matrix has 2.
I would like to loop through every possible permutation of binary values in such an array that has a single group of contiguous 1s. I am aware that for a 10×7 grid like above there are 2(10 × 7) permutations when you include non-contiguous permutations, but my hope is that by excluding non-contiguous permutations I will be able to go through them all in reasonable CPU time.
Speaking of reasonableness, I am also interested in an algorithm to determine how many permutations are contiguous.
My question is similar to, but different from, these:
2D Bit matrix with every possible combination
Finding Contiguous Areas of Bits in 2D Bit Array
Any help is appreciated. I'm a bit stuck.
So, I found that the OEIS (Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences) has a sequence from n = 0..7 for the "number of nonzero n X n binary arrays with all 1's connected" (A059525). They provide no formula though except for grids fixed at 1 cell wide (triangular numbers), or 2 or 3 cells wide. There's a sequence for 4 x n too but no formula.
Two approaches I can think of. One is to iterate through all possible sequences and devise a test for non-contiguous groups and some method for skipping over large regions guaranteed to be non-contiguous.
A second approach is to attempt to build all sets of contiguous groups so you don't need to test. This is the approach I would take:
Let n = width * height
Enumerate blocks left to right, top to bottom from 0 to n - 1
Fix a block at position 0.
Generate all contiguous solutions between 1 and n blocks extending from position 0
Omit position 0 and fix a block at position 1
Find all contiguous solutions between 1 and n - 1 blocks extending from position 1
Continue until you've reached position n
You can place your pieces according to the following rules, backtracking for the next placement at each depth:
To left of most recently placed piece if placed in row above prior piece provided that no other neighbors exist for that vacancy.
Above left-most available piece in row of most recently placed piece if no other neighbors exist for that vacancy.
To right of most recently placed piece (if adjacent piece exists)
On the next row, farthest left vacancy such that upper row has a piece above any contiguous right remaining neighbors
Next move for any backtracked position is first available move to the right of, or in the row below, the backtracked position (obeying prior 4 rules)
Two different lists having radii of upper hemisphere and lower hemisphere is provided. The first list consists of N upper hemispheres indexed 1 to N and the second has M lower hemispheres indexed 1 to M. A sphere of radius of R can be made taking one upper half of the radius R and one lower half of the radius R. Also, you can put a sphere into a bigger one and create a sequence of nested concentric spheres. But you can't put two or more spheres directly into another one.
If there is a sequence of (D+1) nested spheres, we can call this sequence as a D-sequence.
Find out how many different X-sequence are possible (1 <= X <= C). An X sequence is different from another if the index of any of the hemisphere used in one X-sequence is different from the other.
INPUT
The first line contains a three integers: N denoting the number of upper sphere halves, M denoting the number of lower sphere halves and C.
The second line contains N space-separated integers denoting the radii of upper hemispheres.
The third line contains M space-separated integers denoting the radii of lower hemispheres.
OUTPUT
Output a single line containing C space-separated integers , the number of ways there are to build i-sequence in modulo 1000000007.
Example
Input
3 4 3
1 2 3
1 1 3 2
Output
5 2 0
I am looking for those elements which are part of both the lists of upper as well as lower hemispheres, so that they can form a sphere and then taking their maximum count by comparing their counts in both radii lists.
And, So, for different C sum of products of counts of C+1 elements yields the answer.
How to calculate the above efficiently or is there any other approach ??
Guys this is my first answer. Spare me the whip for now as i am here to learn.
You first find the numbers of spheres possible for each radii.
no of spheres: 2 1 1
Having Radii: 1 2 3
Now since we can fit a sphere with radius r inside a sphere with radii R such that R>r, all we need to do is to find the no . of increasing subsequences of length 2,3,...till c in the list of all possible spheres formed.
List of possible spheres:[1,1*,2,3](* used for marking)
consider D1: it has 2 spheres. Try finding the no. of increasing subsequences of length 2 in the above list.
They are:
[1,2],[1*,2][1,3][1*,3][2,3]
hence the ans is 5.
Get it??
Now how to solve:
It can be done by using Dp. Naive solution has complexity .O(n^2*constant).
You may follow along the lines as provided in the following link :Dp solution.
It is worth mentioning that faster methods do exist which use BIT , segment trees etc.
It is similar to this SPOJ problem.
I'm currently trying to solve an algorithm problem from last year's Polish Collegiate Championships which reads as follows:
The Lord Mayor of Bytetown plans to locate a number of radar speed
cameras in the city. There are n intersections in Bytetown numbered
from 1 to n, and n-1 two way street segments. Each of these street
segments stretches between two intersections. The street network
allows getting from each intersection to any other.
The speed cameras are to be located at the intersections (maximum one
per intersection), wherein The Lord Mayor wants to maximise the number
of speed cameras. However, in order not to aggravate Byteland
motorists too much, he decided that on every route running across
Bytetown roads that does not pass through any intersection twice there
can be maximum k speed cameras (including those on endpoints of the
route). Your task is to write a program which will determine where the
speed cameras should be located.
Input
The first line of input contains two integers n and k (1 <= n, k <=
1000000): the number of intersections in Bytetown and maximum number
of speed cameras which can be set up on an individual route. The lines
that follow describe Bytetown street network: the i-th line contains
two integers a_i and b_i (1 <= a_i, b_i <= n), meaning that there is a
two-way street segment which joins two intersections numbered a_i and
b_i.
Output
The first output line should produce m: the number describing the
maximum number of speed cameras, that can be set up in Byteland. The
second line should produce a sequence of m numbers describing the
intersections where the speed cameras should be constructed. Should
there be many solutions, your program may output any one of them.
Example
For the following input data:
5 2
1 3
2 3
3 4
4 5
one of the correct results is:
3 1 2 4
So judging by how many teams solved it, I'm guessing it can't be too hard but still, I got stuck almost immediately with no idea as to how to move on. Since we know that "on every route running across Bytetown roads that does not pass through any intersection twice there can be maximum k speed camera", I guess we first have to somehow dissect the graphs into components being possible routes around the town. This alone seems like a really hard thing to do cause supposing there's an intersection with four motorways coming out of it, it already creates three possible directions for every enter point, thus making 12 routes. Not to mention how the situation complicates when there's more such four-handed intersections.
Maybe I'm approaching the task from the wrong angle? Could you please help?
It seems greedy works here
while k >= 2
mark all leaves of the tree and remove them
k = k - 2;
if ( k == 1 )
mark any 1 of remaining vertices
I'm looking for a variation on the Hungarian algorithm (I think) that will pair N people to themselves, excluding self-pairs and reverse-pairs, where N is even.
E.g. given N0 - N6 and a matrix C of costs for each pair, how can I obtain the set of 3 lowest-cost pairs?
C = [ [ - 5 6 1 9 4 ]
[ 5 - 4 8 6 2 ]
[ 6 4 - 3 7 6 ]
[ 1 8 3 - 8 9 ]
[ 9 6 7 8 - 5 ]
[ 4 2 6 9 5 - ] ]
In this example, the resulting pairs would be:
N0, N3
N1, N4
N2, N5
Having typed this out I'm now wondering if I can just increase the cost values in the "bottom half" of the matrix... or even better, remove them.
Is there a variation of Hungarian that works on a non-square matrix?
Or, is there another algorithm that solves this variation of the problem?
Increasing the values of the bottom half can result in an incorrect solution. You can see this as the corner coordinates (in your example coordinates 0,1 and 5,6) of the upper half will always be considered to be in the minimum X pairs, where X is the size of the matrix.
My Solution for finding the minimum X pairs
Take the standard Hungarian algorithm
You can set the diagonal to a value greater than the sum of the elements in the unaltered matrix — this step may allow you to speed up your implementation, depending on how your implementation handles nulls.
1) The first step of the standard algorithm is to go through each row, and then each column, reducing each row and column individually such that the minimum of each row and column is zero. This is unchanged.
The general principle of this solution, is to mirror every subsequent step of the original algorithm around the diagonal.
2) The next step of the algorithm is to select rows and columns so that every zero is included within the selection, using the minimum number of rows and columns.
My alteration to the algorithm means that when selecting a row/column, also select the column/row mirrored around that diagonal, but count it as one row or column selection for all purposes, including counting the diagonal (which will be the intersection of these mirrored row/column selection pairs) as only being selected once.
3) The next step is to check if you have the right solution — which in the standard algorithm means checking if the number of rows and columns selected is equal to the size of the matrix — in your example if six rows and columns have been selected.
For this variation however, when calculating when to end the algorithm treat each row/column mirrored pair of selections as a single row or column selection. If you have the right solution then end the algorithm here.
4) If the number of rows and columns is less than the size of the matrix, then find the smallest unselected element, and call it k. Subtract k from all uncovered elements, and add it to all elements that are covered twice (again, counting the mirrored row/column selection as a single selection).
My alteration of the algorithm means that when altering values, you will alter their mirrored values identically (this should happen naturally as a result of the mirrored selection process).
Then go back to step 2 and repeat steps 2-4 until step 3 indicates the algorithm is finished.
This will result in pairs of mirrored answers (which are the coordinates — to get the value of these coordinates refer back to the original matrix) — you can safely delete half of each pair arbitrarily.
To alter this algorithm to find the minimum R pairs, where R is less than the size of the matrix, reduce the stopping point in step 3 to R. This alteration is essential to answering your question.
As #Niklas B, stated you are solving Weighted perfect matching problem
take a look at this
here is part of document describing Primal-dual algorithm for weighted perfect matching
Please read all and let me know if is useful to you
you are given an N X M rectangular field with bottom left point at the origin. You have to construct a tower with square base in the field. There are trees in the field with associated cost to uproot them. So you have to minimize the number of trees uprooted to minimize the cost of constructing the tower.
Example Input:
N = 4
M = 3
Lenght of side of Tower = 1
Number of Trees in the field = 4
1 3 5
3 3 4
2 2 1
2 1 2
The 4 rows in the Input are the coordinates of the tree with cost for uprooting as the third integer.
Tree coinciding with the edge of the tower is considered as placed inside the tower and have to be uprooted as well.
I'm facing problem in formulating the Dynamic Programming relation for this problem
thanks
It sounds like your problem boils down to: find the KxK subblock of an MxN matrix with the smallest sum. You can solve this problem efficiently (proportional to the size of your input) by using an integral transform. Of course, this doesn't necessarily help you with your dynamic programming issue -- I'm not sure this solution is equivalent to any dynamic programming formulation....
At any rate, for each index pair (a,b) of your original matrix M, compute an "integral transform" matrix I[a,b] = sum[i<=a, j<=b](M[i,j]). This is computable by traversing the matrix in order, referring to the value computed from the previous row/column. (with a bit of thought, you can also do this efficiently with a sparse matrix)
Then, you can compute the sum of any subblock (a1..a2, b1..b2) in constant time as I[a2,b2] - I[a1-1,b2] - I[a2,b1-1] + I[a1-1,b1-1]. Iterating through all KxK subblocks to find the smallest sum will then take time proportional to the size of your original matrix also.
Since the original problem is phrased as a list of integral coordinates (and, presumably, expects the tower location to be output as an integral coordinate pair), you likely do need to represent your field as a sparse matrix for an efficient solution -- this involves sorting your trees' coordinates in lexicographic order (e.g. first by x-coordinate, then by y-coordinate). Note that this sorting step may take O(L log L) for input of size L, dominating the following steps, which take only O(L) in the size of the input.
Also note that, due to the problem specifying that "trees coinciding with the edge of the tower are uprooted...", a tower with edge length K actually corresponds to an (K+1)x(K+1) subblock.